So, last night my gamin' buddy and I finished Far Cray new Dawn and I thought I'd follow up the last post with my thoughts now that the game is completed. Warning! There be spoilers ahead.
I stand by the impressions of combat, driving, graphics and environment as they are great and the mechanics feel good. Unfortunately I don't recommend it for the story. In short, the story stinks. The story is full of forced scenes that do not make much sense in how they unfold. It may be that I have been influenced by having a spouse that is a writer, or that I am thinking too much about it, however I found myself watching the cut scenes and thinking "what the F***?"
In the beginning, you are cornered by the twins and the obvious choices you have are to either open fire and try to kill them or jump off a cliff, but you don't get the choice, so you are forced to jump. Now I'm not a jump kind of guy, so I would have opted to take the chance and wipe out the baddie leadership when I had the opportunity. Hell I had a light machine gun with a full belt of ammo when this happened.
Next time you are confronted with the twins it's just you, them and a hostage. Again, I had an up-scaled LMG and a full belt, could I take a shot then? Hell no. They tell you to handcuff yourself so they can beat you.senseless and then kill the hostage anyway. Yeah, I didn't see that coming (that's sarcasm by the way). There's also a similar set of scenes with Mr. Seed and his son.
I don't like it when games are "on rails" where you are forced down a specific path. It shouldn't be so difficult to engineer a couple of endings and allow some choice during the story cut-scenes that will affect the ending you have as the game winds down. This sort of design laziness really does not make the game very open-world as was advertised.
So what about the open-world aspect? It's extremely limited. The outposts you have to take are few and easily taken while the "game world" is very small. So you take over all the gang's outposts, after all you are supposed to be driving them out of the area, the story proceeds like you haven't taken over any completely ignoring what is actually happening. I felt I was entering alternate dimensions half the time. You can even find the prison where the gang takes all the people it kidnaps, but if you go there you find a little loot and zero people until the story decides you have to go there.
To conclude, I felt the game has very strong mechanics for combat, driving and environment but it falls down horribly when integrating the story with the "open world" aspects. I could not recommend it as a AAA title at an AAA price. My advice: Wait for a sale if you still want to play it and maybe pay for it at 60% off.
Saturday, March 30, 2019
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
Far Cry new Dawn - First Impressions
I recently managed to get Far Cry New Dawn for the PC today through a sale on the Humble store. In short, I haven't laughed that hard in quite a while. Oh, wait! It's not a laugh of derision, rather I had some real FUN.
See, I have this friend who plays a LOT of games, and we really enjoy multiplayer and cooperative games together. For the last few months all that was available were the "battle royale" style arena games, which I detest, so we haven't been playing together so much. Since the game was on sale and my friend liked Far Cry 5, we decided to purchase it and I am very glad I did.
New Dawn is set something like 16 years after the end of Far Cry 5 and after a nuclear war, so start thinking along the lines of the Fallout series... kind of. People of the area where the game is set are trying to start over with not much in the way of resources. before they know it this "road warrior" style gang starts to bully and kill the inhabitants and take everything for themselves. As the protagonists you are to help people, defeat the gang and are free to roam the game map as you like, really. Anyway that's the premise in a nutshell. What follows is my breakdown of the game's strengths and weaknesses.
Graphics: These are great and even on low settings they are quite immersive. I feel that they are quite sufficient and if there are glitches/problems I didn't notice any.
Gunplay: Since this game is, essentially, a shooter I found that combat felt really smooth and organic. Some of the weapons are really over the top, but it's not a reality simulator, so enjoy the craziness.
Movement: Once again I found the movement to be very smooth and organic with the typical controls available (run, crouch, etc.).
Tasks/Quests: Well, they are in there and you can do them. Lots of side things to do or you can just run around shooting and looting if that is what you like.
Vehicles: Probably one of my favorite parts. There is a good selection of land vehicles pretty much right off the bat from ATVs to Semi trucks. All the ones I tried during my stream felt good driving in first person view.
Wild Life: This was pretty hilarious. With the exception of deer, so far anyway, everything else is hostile to humans. We were attacked by wild boars, a bear, feral dogs, a skunk and several turkeys. Yes, that's right, turkeys. One of my favorite moments during the initial stream was yelling out "turkey!" to my friend as it rushed him.
Weaknesses: Hard to find right now. Everything felt great, but I didn't take the game very seriously and it felt to me that you shouldn't do so. There are probably a ton of bugs that I didn't notice.
Odd Notes and Summary: Lets see... Overall, I had a blast. I would tell people on the fence about the game to take the premise and story with a pinch of salt and immerse yourself in the game. Most of all just have fun. Try silly things and don't take getting whacked too seriously. If you are looking for a combat simulator and want to act like you are in the military, then this probably isn't the game for you. If you are looking for some over the top action, then hell yeah, go pick it up. The sale on Humble has 2 more days to go.
See, I have this friend who plays a LOT of games, and we really enjoy multiplayer and cooperative games together. For the last few months all that was available were the "battle royale" style arena games, which I detest, so we haven't been playing together so much. Since the game was on sale and my friend liked Far Cry 5, we decided to purchase it and I am very glad I did.
New Dawn is set something like 16 years after the end of Far Cry 5 and after a nuclear war, so start thinking along the lines of the Fallout series... kind of. People of the area where the game is set are trying to start over with not much in the way of resources. before they know it this "road warrior" style gang starts to bully and kill the inhabitants and take everything for themselves. As the protagonists you are to help people, defeat the gang and are free to roam the game map as you like, really. Anyway that's the premise in a nutshell. What follows is my breakdown of the game's strengths and weaknesses.
Graphics: These are great and even on low settings they are quite immersive. I feel that they are quite sufficient and if there are glitches/problems I didn't notice any.
Gunplay: Since this game is, essentially, a shooter I found that combat felt really smooth and organic. Some of the weapons are really over the top, but it's not a reality simulator, so enjoy the craziness.
Movement: Once again I found the movement to be very smooth and organic with the typical controls available (run, crouch, etc.).
Tasks/Quests: Well, they are in there and you can do them. Lots of side things to do or you can just run around shooting and looting if that is what you like.
Vehicles: Probably one of my favorite parts. There is a good selection of land vehicles pretty much right off the bat from ATVs to Semi trucks. All the ones I tried during my stream felt good driving in first person view.
Wild Life: This was pretty hilarious. With the exception of deer, so far anyway, everything else is hostile to humans. We were attacked by wild boars, a bear, feral dogs, a skunk and several turkeys. Yes, that's right, turkeys. One of my favorite moments during the initial stream was yelling out "turkey!" to my friend as it rushed him.
Weaknesses: Hard to find right now. Everything felt great, but I didn't take the game very seriously and it felt to me that you shouldn't do so. There are probably a ton of bugs that I didn't notice.
Odd Notes and Summary: Lets see... Overall, I had a blast. I would tell people on the fence about the game to take the premise and story with a pinch of salt and immerse yourself in the game. Most of all just have fun. Try silly things and don't take getting whacked too seriously. If you are looking for a combat simulator and want to act like you are in the military, then this probably isn't the game for you. If you are looking for some over the top action, then hell yeah, go pick it up. The sale on Humble has 2 more days to go.
Sunday, March 17, 2019
What is Science?
So here I am today pondering the collective term Science. What is it, at least to me and what I think it should mean to everyone.
I am not going to begin with the dictionary definition, rather I am going to draw upon my own experience having been immersed in the scientific world for quite a while. Technically, I am not a scientist as I don't have a PhD. Instead I do have a BSc and a couple of college diplomas. Note that where I live there is a distinct difference between university and college. If memory serves, in the United States the term "college" refers to university and "community college" is equivalent to what we here call simply college. My own definition is as follows: College trains you for a job while university trains you to think. Of course it's overly simplified and not 100% applicable, but that is a discussion for another time. I do feel qualified saying the previous as I've been through both systems. Anyway, back to the discussion at hand.
Science, to me, is a methodology for understanding how things work following the principle of parsimony. Predictions must be predictive and not accepted as fact unless there is a mountain of evidence to support them, better yet proof must exist for each. Science is not a jumble of facts, people wearing lab coats, test tubes, boiling liquids or wild-eyed people surrounded by lightning bolts screaming "it's alive", etc. Science is a way of thinking about everything which leads us to a structured discovery of the reality around us. The second line in this paragraph represents the caution that must be exercised to separate theory from fact.
Theory must be predictive. The term theory used in common conversation is incorrectly used in most cases. I often encounter people who present their "theory" on a subject, but you cannot test this "theory" as it has no predictive value. So what do I really mean by this? An example is in order I guess.
Let's say someone has a theory that the sky is blue because magical creatures paint it each morning, but it happens instantly and these creature can never be detected. Well that isn't a theory as it contains the hypothesis that you can never detect the activity. If you leave out the undetected bit then it could remain a theory as it predicts 2 testable items, mainly the act of paining the sky each morning and that there are magical creatures doing the job. These are testable. The activity in the theory may be difficult to detect, but with better measurement techniques may be possible and open to scientific investigation or refinement following parsimony.
Parsimony, loosely stated is "the simplest explanation that accounts for all aspects of a phenomenon tends to be the correct explanation." This may also be dubbed "Occam's Razor" by some. One must use some caution here as not all explanations are so simple though, but many are, so it's a good principle to follow. The main component of any theory that makes it a theory is the predictability component that can be tested, hopefully leading to a proof, or further refinement.
Proof must be repeatable independently of whomever claims to have discovered said proof. Take the cold fusion flap in the the late 80's to early 90's. This so called discovery could have changed the world and rightly so got a lot of people excited, however it wasn't repeatable independently. No proof. The people involved were not looked upon kindly as they did not follow the basic principle of scientific reasoning as initially stated in this article. Other theories that have been proven time and again still remain theories, like with the great Albert Einstein. His theories are still regarded as such, even after a literal mountain of evidence because we lack the capability that they apply everywhere in the Universe. Proof would require that we can show that general and special relativity, among others, work the same at every point in the Universe. So now we have a, more or less, technical understanding of science, but I haven't answered what it means to me quite yet.
My personal understanding of science is that it is a way of thinking about pretty much everything. when I was in University they would bandy about the term "critical thinking" in all my classes. Oddly enough this got me critically thinking about "critical thinking: and I came to the conclusion that it is simply the application of scientific principle to pretty much everything. We all do it to some degree whether we recognize it as such or not. Children seem to exhibit a great degree of critical thought at an early age, and as they get older it seems to take a back seat to things like belief.
Ah, belief. My nemesis. I really, actively avoid using speech that includes that word, because of what I have observed belief to mean. Belief, to me, means "the acceptance of something as fact when there is no evidence to support it and often, when there is evidence to disprove it." It's the opposite of science. If I ever say "I believe" I am abdicating conscious thought and to me, that is just wrong. The Universe is a far, far more interesting place in reality, there is no need to make stuff up.
My reason for writing this is mainly that I see the rise of belief these days leading to some truly horrendous acts on the part of "regular" people and even whole governments. Not only is this horrifying to me, it's extremely wasteful. So much potential and resources wasted on the alter of belief. I do recognize that it is human nature to believe, however we also have the capability to override our instincts and we need more of that these days. I do think that the principle of scientific thought, as simply stated in the intro can lead people to a better understanding of each other, the world and ultimately everything. We do not have to give up our imaginations, however it wouldn't hurt the next time someone makes a claim about nature, the world or other people and ask themselves "where is the evidence"", or better yet, "is there any proof?" and does this evidence or proof follow parsimony.
I am not going to begin with the dictionary definition, rather I am going to draw upon my own experience having been immersed in the scientific world for quite a while. Technically, I am not a scientist as I don't have a PhD. Instead I do have a BSc and a couple of college diplomas. Note that where I live there is a distinct difference between university and college. If memory serves, in the United States the term "college" refers to university and "community college" is equivalent to what we here call simply college. My own definition is as follows: College trains you for a job while university trains you to think. Of course it's overly simplified and not 100% applicable, but that is a discussion for another time. I do feel qualified saying the previous as I've been through both systems. Anyway, back to the discussion at hand.
Science, to me, is a methodology for understanding how things work following the principle of parsimony. Predictions must be predictive and not accepted as fact unless there is a mountain of evidence to support them, better yet proof must exist for each. Science is not a jumble of facts, people wearing lab coats, test tubes, boiling liquids or wild-eyed people surrounded by lightning bolts screaming "it's alive", etc. Science is a way of thinking about everything which leads us to a structured discovery of the reality around us. The second line in this paragraph represents the caution that must be exercised to separate theory from fact.
Theory must be predictive. The term theory used in common conversation is incorrectly used in most cases. I often encounter people who present their "theory" on a subject, but you cannot test this "theory" as it has no predictive value. So what do I really mean by this? An example is in order I guess.
Let's say someone has a theory that the sky is blue because magical creatures paint it each morning, but it happens instantly and these creature can never be detected. Well that isn't a theory as it contains the hypothesis that you can never detect the activity. If you leave out the undetected bit then it could remain a theory as it predicts 2 testable items, mainly the act of paining the sky each morning and that there are magical creatures doing the job. These are testable. The activity in the theory may be difficult to detect, but with better measurement techniques may be possible and open to scientific investigation or refinement following parsimony.
Parsimony, loosely stated is "the simplest explanation that accounts for all aspects of a phenomenon tends to be the correct explanation." This may also be dubbed "Occam's Razor" by some. One must use some caution here as not all explanations are so simple though, but many are, so it's a good principle to follow. The main component of any theory that makes it a theory is the predictability component that can be tested, hopefully leading to a proof, or further refinement.
Proof must be repeatable independently of whomever claims to have discovered said proof. Take the cold fusion flap in the the late 80's to early 90's. This so called discovery could have changed the world and rightly so got a lot of people excited, however it wasn't repeatable independently. No proof. The people involved were not looked upon kindly as they did not follow the basic principle of scientific reasoning as initially stated in this article. Other theories that have been proven time and again still remain theories, like with the great Albert Einstein. His theories are still regarded as such, even after a literal mountain of evidence because we lack the capability that they apply everywhere in the Universe. Proof would require that we can show that general and special relativity, among others, work the same at every point in the Universe. So now we have a, more or less, technical understanding of science, but I haven't answered what it means to me quite yet.
My personal understanding of science is that it is a way of thinking about pretty much everything. when I was in University they would bandy about the term "critical thinking" in all my classes. Oddly enough this got me critically thinking about "critical thinking: and I came to the conclusion that it is simply the application of scientific principle to pretty much everything. We all do it to some degree whether we recognize it as such or not. Children seem to exhibit a great degree of critical thought at an early age, and as they get older it seems to take a back seat to things like belief.
Ah, belief. My nemesis. I really, actively avoid using speech that includes that word, because of what I have observed belief to mean. Belief, to me, means "the acceptance of something as fact when there is no evidence to support it and often, when there is evidence to disprove it." It's the opposite of science. If I ever say "I believe" I am abdicating conscious thought and to me, that is just wrong. The Universe is a far, far more interesting place in reality, there is no need to make stuff up.
My reason for writing this is mainly that I see the rise of belief these days leading to some truly horrendous acts on the part of "regular" people and even whole governments. Not only is this horrifying to me, it's extremely wasteful. So much potential and resources wasted on the alter of belief. I do recognize that it is human nature to believe, however we also have the capability to override our instincts and we need more of that these days. I do think that the principle of scientific thought, as simply stated in the intro can lead people to a better understanding of each other, the world and ultimately everything. We do not have to give up our imaginations, however it wouldn't hurt the next time someone makes a claim about nature, the world or other people and ask themselves "where is the evidence"", or better yet, "is there any proof?" and does this evidence or proof follow parsimony.
Thursday, March 14, 2019
Good Games & AAA publishers
Time for me to expound on what I consider a "good game" and why I often ignore the big, AAA publishers.
I tend to have a little ranking system in my head that I try and use when determining whether or not I think a game might be good enough to purchase. I have noticed over the years that it may not coincide with what the "cool kids" think is a great game. For me, the actual game play is of the utmost importance which include the game mechanics, information on how to play, the possibilities offered, bugginess, price, and finally graphics. I am often ridiculed because I don't consider how pretty a game is to be a major feature.
These days it seems, at least to me, that a lot of games rely on their graphics to sell it and often the beautiful games get played for a bit, but not for long. The last time I bought a game based on graphics it was a wake-up call. That game was Modern Warfare.
It was beautiful for it's time. Pretty realistic and I really go into it, all 4 hours of it. I think I paid like $50 for it when it came out and really felt like I didn't get my money's worth at $12.50/hour. After that there wasn't any reason to replay it and to be frank I don't like replaying the same scenarios over and over. I think that replaying just so you can feel that you have gotten some value out of it is really lying to yourself and a cheesy way to validate the purchase. Needless to say that was the last time I got excited over graphics. IMHO if a game meets the other criteria AND has nice graphics, I consider the graphics a bonus. So then, what do I mean by the criteria above?
Mechanics are the most important thing for me by far. The systems in a game must entertain, be clear and give you some sense of accomplishment. I get really tired of overly complex games that fill the experience with minutia that doesn't server any purpose other than to extend play time because it takes you 50 steps to do something that should be done in 3. The mechanics should be clear, make sense and be accessible to players. I feel that this is where a lot of games these days fall down and leave it up to the player to "discover" how the game works. I also think that's why the recent rash of Battle Royale games are so popular with their simple and accessible mechanics. Mechanics that are somewhat obvious tie directly in to the requirement of information on play.
Many games are either not including, or only partially including tutorials and other information on how to actually play the game. I remember the olden days circa Commodore 64 and earlier, yes I am that old. My first computer was a BCD Heathkit system you had to assemble and could do hexadecimal math with a 2 digit, 7-segment display I got in grade school. Anyway, In the olden days of yore you not only bought the game, but you would get a really nice manual, maps and other stuff that you would go over building anticipation and actually giving you all the information you needed to play. These days you are lucky to get an in-game tutorial, a slap on the ass and thrown to the wolves. A game doesn't need to lead you by the nose, however it should give you enough information about the game world and it's systems so you don't have to scour the web or search forums to discover how things work. Good documentation, either in-game or in print, can get you going well enough so you can enjoy the experience and see the possibilities.
The possibilities a game offers is a major reason why I play the games I do, so I tend to gravitate toward survival and open world types. I want to experience the game, not just beat an endless string of bosses. A good game should tantalize me with things I can do or be. When I say I want to experience a game that may not have been the right term, rather I want to immerse myself in the experience and cannot really do that without seeing the possibilities. As an example I will use Eve Online.
While it's true that Eve misses the point of being overly complex, it certainly does tantalize with possibility and that part is done right. It's pretty easy to get involved in the game world and immerse yourself for a couple of hours each play session. They so this with character/racial backgrounds, their consistent appearances and since the game relies heavily on player interaction you are immediately immersed in conversation with actual people. Over the years they have revamped their new player experience to teach ALL the basics, so kudos to the folks at CCP for listening to the veterans. These are the reasons that I played Eve for so many years. Eve is just one example. I could go on about the games I despise, but will prevent this from becoming a rant.
So what about how buggy the game it eh? Well I have a fairly high tolerance for bugs unless they really prevent some good game play. Take the Fallout series. I love Fallout from version 3 to New Vegas and *gasp* even Fallout 76. There I said it. Why though? It's well known that these games have some pretty obvious bugs, and heck some are even pretty hilarious. I love the games because of they hit all the previous points and in spite of the bugs you can get some really serious game play in. It's even become a running joke about Fallout bugs from the early days that are still present. The fact remains though that they are just darned fun, engaging and the graphics are not bad at all.
Now we turn our attention to graphics, the elephant in the room. Graphics are cool, but not a big requirement for me. The graphics only need to depict the game world enough to let the player get into the game, mentally. I see a lot of reviewers go on about the rendering engines, pixel/polygon counts, lighting, colours, (yes that's the correct spelling), etc. and pay lip-service to the other aspects of a game. I could play a game made entirely of stick figures if it met the rest of the requirements and be completely happy with it. Unfortunately I see too many people comment and get excited about the graphics without considering how the game plays, what it offers otherwise and I believe that this contributes to the enormous costs of AAA titles,
Finally there's my beef with AAA publishers. Sure they are out to make a buck and I don't begrudge them that. You don't get into business to become poor. My beef is that they generally are offering "pretty" instead of good games and for enormous prices. The games on offer these days seem to focus almost entirely of pretty graphics rushed out the door having very shallow game play. This is why I'd need a very compelling reason to shell out 80 bucks for any AAA title ever again. It is my sincerest wish that some day, before I die, that a AAA game publisher will say enough is enough and start showing some integrity demanding that the developers of their games actually address the above. At the same time I wish that consumers would speak with their wallets and voices and demand that these publishers start pushing games that will last longer than a few hours and that teh games actually have some depth to foster that immersed feeling.
I tend to have a little ranking system in my head that I try and use when determining whether or not I think a game might be good enough to purchase. I have noticed over the years that it may not coincide with what the "cool kids" think is a great game. For me, the actual game play is of the utmost importance which include the game mechanics, information on how to play, the possibilities offered, bugginess, price, and finally graphics. I am often ridiculed because I don't consider how pretty a game is to be a major feature.
These days it seems, at least to me, that a lot of games rely on their graphics to sell it and often the beautiful games get played for a bit, but not for long. The last time I bought a game based on graphics it was a wake-up call. That game was Modern Warfare.
It was beautiful for it's time. Pretty realistic and I really go into it, all 4 hours of it. I think I paid like $50 for it when it came out and really felt like I didn't get my money's worth at $12.50/hour. After that there wasn't any reason to replay it and to be frank I don't like replaying the same scenarios over and over. I think that replaying just so you can feel that you have gotten some value out of it is really lying to yourself and a cheesy way to validate the purchase. Needless to say that was the last time I got excited over graphics. IMHO if a game meets the other criteria AND has nice graphics, I consider the graphics a bonus. So then, what do I mean by the criteria above?
Mechanics are the most important thing for me by far. The systems in a game must entertain, be clear and give you some sense of accomplishment. I get really tired of overly complex games that fill the experience with minutia that doesn't server any purpose other than to extend play time because it takes you 50 steps to do something that should be done in 3. The mechanics should be clear, make sense and be accessible to players. I feel that this is where a lot of games these days fall down and leave it up to the player to "discover" how the game works. I also think that's why the recent rash of Battle Royale games are so popular with their simple and accessible mechanics. Mechanics that are somewhat obvious tie directly in to the requirement of information on play.
Many games are either not including, or only partially including tutorials and other information on how to actually play the game. I remember the olden days circa Commodore 64 and earlier, yes I am that old. My first computer was a BCD Heathkit system you had to assemble and could do hexadecimal math with a 2 digit, 7-segment display I got in grade school. Anyway, In the olden days of yore you not only bought the game, but you would get a really nice manual, maps and other stuff that you would go over building anticipation and actually giving you all the information you needed to play. These days you are lucky to get an in-game tutorial, a slap on the ass and thrown to the wolves. A game doesn't need to lead you by the nose, however it should give you enough information about the game world and it's systems so you don't have to scour the web or search forums to discover how things work. Good documentation, either in-game or in print, can get you going well enough so you can enjoy the experience and see the possibilities.
The possibilities a game offers is a major reason why I play the games I do, so I tend to gravitate toward survival and open world types. I want to experience the game, not just beat an endless string of bosses. A good game should tantalize me with things I can do or be. When I say I want to experience a game that may not have been the right term, rather I want to immerse myself in the experience and cannot really do that without seeing the possibilities. As an example I will use Eve Online.
While it's true that Eve misses the point of being overly complex, it certainly does tantalize with possibility and that part is done right. It's pretty easy to get involved in the game world and immerse yourself for a couple of hours each play session. They so this with character/racial backgrounds, their consistent appearances and since the game relies heavily on player interaction you are immediately immersed in conversation with actual people. Over the years they have revamped their new player experience to teach ALL the basics, so kudos to the folks at CCP for listening to the veterans. These are the reasons that I played Eve for so many years. Eve is just one example. I could go on about the games I despise, but will prevent this from becoming a rant.
So what about how buggy the game it eh? Well I have a fairly high tolerance for bugs unless they really prevent some good game play. Take the Fallout series. I love Fallout from version 3 to New Vegas and *gasp* even Fallout 76. There I said it. Why though? It's well known that these games have some pretty obvious bugs, and heck some are even pretty hilarious. I love the games because of they hit all the previous points and in spite of the bugs you can get some really serious game play in. It's even become a running joke about Fallout bugs from the early days that are still present. The fact remains though that they are just darned fun, engaging and the graphics are not bad at all.
Now we turn our attention to graphics, the elephant in the room. Graphics are cool, but not a big requirement for me. The graphics only need to depict the game world enough to let the player get into the game, mentally. I see a lot of reviewers go on about the rendering engines, pixel/polygon counts, lighting, colours, (yes that's the correct spelling), etc. and pay lip-service to the other aspects of a game. I could play a game made entirely of stick figures if it met the rest of the requirements and be completely happy with it. Unfortunately I see too many people comment and get excited about the graphics without considering how the game plays, what it offers otherwise and I believe that this contributes to the enormous costs of AAA titles,
Finally there's my beef with AAA publishers. Sure they are out to make a buck and I don't begrudge them that. You don't get into business to become poor. My beef is that they generally are offering "pretty" instead of good games and for enormous prices. The games on offer these days seem to focus almost entirely of pretty graphics rushed out the door having very shallow game play. This is why I'd need a very compelling reason to shell out 80 bucks for any AAA title ever again. It is my sincerest wish that some day, before I die, that a AAA game publisher will say enough is enough and start showing some integrity demanding that the developers of their games actually address the above. At the same time I wish that consumers would speak with their wallets and voices and demand that these publishers start pushing games that will last longer than a few hours and that teh games actually have some depth to foster that immersed feeling.
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Early Access Games
So a few years ago I stumbled onto Steam and their "Green Light" program which then introduced the concept of Early Access support for game developers. At the time I was gainfully employed and I would peruse the offerings, reading descriptions and comments and opting into the odd game here and there. This began my "adventure" of supporting these not quite ready for release games. Over the years I have supported quite a few developers and witnessed the drama, if you will, around games that failed or not quite lived up to expectations which is kind of what I want to address here.
It's very common to see two types of persons who buy into early access and they really are two ends of a spectrum. There are what I call the "True Believers", those who support the game development and defend it vehemently and then there are the "Jilted Lovers", those who had unrealistic expectations and turn against the developers and their supporters, because they feel they have been taken advantage of due to the early release not living up to their expectations. The problem with both camps is not the developers or the games, rather it is firmly with people that gravitate to either end of the spectrum. As an example I'll offer up the drama surrounding No Man's Sky.
When the developers of No Man's Sky started showing off what they were working on people went crazy. Mainly, they were showing off:
1) Their visuals, which were pretty amazing.
2) The fact that they were using procedural algorithms to generate the worlds.
3) Some of the systems you might see in the game at release.
So, people started reading into these demonstrations all sorts of crazy crap, (my personal observation), and expounding upon expected features not confirmed by the developers. From there things just got, well, bat-crap crazy. The most cited point was that people expected some kind of full multiplayer experience and at no time did the developer promise that. The closest they got was to say that you may not see another player, but you might see signs that they had been where you are. That's all. What ensued at release was a vitriol laced exchange between the above camps on various forums and Reddit. it was truly toxic and I'll admit that for a time I was tempted to side with one of the groups until my better nature kicked in.
As a person of Science I decided to continue to support the game and just experience it for myself, then I'd make judgments based on my experience and not let bias in. I am glad I did as I thoroughly enjoyed the game and have continued to do so as new content is added, which brings me around to the point of this diatribe.
I think that there are a couple of things that people need to understand about Early Access, and do when seeing something that interests them, which includes kick-starting, etc and that is:
Read for comprehension: It seems to me that this is becoming a lost art in today's society. I see a disturbing tendency for folks to read something and come away with different information that is what was in the thing they read. In the context of this article it applies to Early Access. (gonna abbreviate that to EA from now on), yet I encounter it in all subject areas. Even more disturbing is that people will see a picture or three and come away with all sorts of weird conclusions. People really need to consider what is written or shown and take things at face value.
Consider Realities: It would benefit people who are interested in EA games to learn a little about the development process, particularly with respect to how it is funded and financially supported. I come from the development world, so I do understand that is all you are doing is working on the game, or any other project, you gotta eat. If you can get a funder into a project to give you money to work on it, that's great, but you are then working for them and they want a return on their investment, so the pressure is on to release. I've personally witnessed a few projects collapsing because the funders don't want you to make something good, they want their profit and force a release that's crap hoping to make their money back on initial release sales. Once that's done they don't care if the project fails, they've made their ROI, (Return On Investment), your dev team's name is now mud and left to try and salvage the mess.
The other route is to have a real job and work on the game when you can which means that your best hours are taken up making a living and you are really not at your best while building your dream. This leads to extended development time, generally lackluster communications with fans and the stress of juggling job, development, and life in general leading to burnout. Been there and done that. The chances for project failure are greatest in this case so the developers are likely to be forced to make some quality of life decisions and start focusing on things that are really important in life like family and friends. I think that this is why some EA developers seem to vanish either entirely or for a time. So if you toss 20 bucks at an EA game idea and this happens, have a little empathy.
Visions Change: The overall concept of a game generally won't change in broad terms, however the details might and often do for a whole host of reasons. People need to understand that during development the team can run into technological problems which may change the details, or there may be other reasons such as some aspect just being too ambitious or unsolvable. These are things commonly encountered. An example may be, say in a space game, where the initial promise is a fully activate universe with thousands of star systems that are fully automated all the time. Nice concept, easy to get the SciFi fan in me salivating and technically possible. One problem: the devs find out that with current technology you need a $10,000 computer to pull it off. Oops! So now they need to scale back the promise. It happens and doesn't mean the game is going to be bad. No developer likes to have to go back to the fans and deliver this kind of news, so you have to hand it to them in some ways if they are brave enough to tell their supporters this kind of thing rather than ignore it until release. IMHO it is better to admit being over ambitious and tell people than to just sweep it under the rug and people need to recognize that.
Don't spend what you cannot afford: Actually a good thing to keep in mind for all things whether it be money, goods or emotional investment. When considering to support an EA game, really consider how much you are willing to invest. If it's a Kickstarter-type thing or something else, I'd say that you should consider the money a gift to the developers and not expect anything in return. Remember, you are supporting the developers not buying a product. Yes, the devs will often offer the product for your "donation", but get the idea in your head that you are not to expect it. projects fail in spite of the best of intentions.
Be a little Skeptical: By this I mean following the old adage of "if it's too good to be true then it probably isn't." If a dev is offering up the most fantastical thing, resist the urge to throw your precious cash at them and have some patience. It's easy to become overwhelmed and excited by something that promises to be the "perfect game" for you, so you open your wallet and start tossing coin at the studio. If you get this way, take a breath, go have a burrito or something and re-examine what they seem to be offering then ask yourself if it borders on the "too good to be true" area or not. Better yet, just wait and see what else they present. I have experienced this recently with Dual Universe. They seem to be on track and I am very excited for it, however I cannot really afford to buy into the alpha, so I force myself to calm down and wait. I follow their development when I can and repeat the cycle of excitement, calming down and continue to wait. It looks like the "perfect" game for me, but it may not be so I restrain myself and wait for release.
Learn Patience: Following from the above is learning to have some patience, which I guess is a good thing to learn for all aspects of life. Once you have learned to be patient about some things, life seems to be less stressful and more enjoyable allowing you to focus on the things that give you satisfaction and pleasure. Being excited and wanting it NOW are really not the same thing, you can be intensely interested in a game idea and have the patience to wait for it to become more than an idea at the same time.
So that's my take on the people who get into the "drama" around EA games and game ideas and what I think people who look at these things need to consider. Sure there are going to be "fly by night" developers looking for a quick buck and not producing anything, and there are going to be the odd group who go to EA with an idea but are not really prepared to develop a game, however I think those are rare and not the norm. I have seen enough of the development world in other realms of software development to lead me to think that most projects are sincere and begun with the full intention on delivering their vision.
It's very common to see two types of persons who buy into early access and they really are two ends of a spectrum. There are what I call the "True Believers", those who support the game development and defend it vehemently and then there are the "Jilted Lovers", those who had unrealistic expectations and turn against the developers and their supporters, because they feel they have been taken advantage of due to the early release not living up to their expectations. The problem with both camps is not the developers or the games, rather it is firmly with people that gravitate to either end of the spectrum. As an example I'll offer up the drama surrounding No Man's Sky.
When the developers of No Man's Sky started showing off what they were working on people went crazy. Mainly, they were showing off:
1) Their visuals, which were pretty amazing.
2) The fact that they were using procedural algorithms to generate the worlds.
3) Some of the systems you might see in the game at release.
So, people started reading into these demonstrations all sorts of crazy crap, (my personal observation), and expounding upon expected features not confirmed by the developers. From there things just got, well, bat-crap crazy. The most cited point was that people expected some kind of full multiplayer experience and at no time did the developer promise that. The closest they got was to say that you may not see another player, but you might see signs that they had been where you are. That's all. What ensued at release was a vitriol laced exchange between the above camps on various forums and Reddit. it was truly toxic and I'll admit that for a time I was tempted to side with one of the groups until my better nature kicked in.
As a person of Science I decided to continue to support the game and just experience it for myself, then I'd make judgments based on my experience and not let bias in. I am glad I did as I thoroughly enjoyed the game and have continued to do so as new content is added, which brings me around to the point of this diatribe.
I think that there are a couple of things that people need to understand about Early Access, and do when seeing something that interests them, which includes kick-starting, etc and that is:
Read for comprehension: It seems to me that this is becoming a lost art in today's society. I see a disturbing tendency for folks to read something and come away with different information that is what was in the thing they read. In the context of this article it applies to Early Access. (gonna abbreviate that to EA from now on), yet I encounter it in all subject areas. Even more disturbing is that people will see a picture or three and come away with all sorts of weird conclusions. People really need to consider what is written or shown and take things at face value.
Consider Realities: It would benefit people who are interested in EA games to learn a little about the development process, particularly with respect to how it is funded and financially supported. I come from the development world, so I do understand that is all you are doing is working on the game, or any other project, you gotta eat. If you can get a funder into a project to give you money to work on it, that's great, but you are then working for them and they want a return on their investment, so the pressure is on to release. I've personally witnessed a few projects collapsing because the funders don't want you to make something good, they want their profit and force a release that's crap hoping to make their money back on initial release sales. Once that's done they don't care if the project fails, they've made their ROI, (Return On Investment), your dev team's name is now mud and left to try and salvage the mess.
The other route is to have a real job and work on the game when you can which means that your best hours are taken up making a living and you are really not at your best while building your dream. This leads to extended development time, generally lackluster communications with fans and the stress of juggling job, development, and life in general leading to burnout. Been there and done that. The chances for project failure are greatest in this case so the developers are likely to be forced to make some quality of life decisions and start focusing on things that are really important in life like family and friends. I think that this is why some EA developers seem to vanish either entirely or for a time. So if you toss 20 bucks at an EA game idea and this happens, have a little empathy.
Visions Change: The overall concept of a game generally won't change in broad terms, however the details might and often do for a whole host of reasons. People need to understand that during development the team can run into technological problems which may change the details, or there may be other reasons such as some aspect just being too ambitious or unsolvable. These are things commonly encountered. An example may be, say in a space game, where the initial promise is a fully activate universe with thousands of star systems that are fully automated all the time. Nice concept, easy to get the SciFi fan in me salivating and technically possible. One problem: the devs find out that with current technology you need a $10,000 computer to pull it off. Oops! So now they need to scale back the promise. It happens and doesn't mean the game is going to be bad. No developer likes to have to go back to the fans and deliver this kind of news, so you have to hand it to them in some ways if they are brave enough to tell their supporters this kind of thing rather than ignore it until release. IMHO it is better to admit being over ambitious and tell people than to just sweep it under the rug and people need to recognize that.
Don't spend what you cannot afford: Actually a good thing to keep in mind for all things whether it be money, goods or emotional investment. When considering to support an EA game, really consider how much you are willing to invest. If it's a Kickstarter-type thing or something else, I'd say that you should consider the money a gift to the developers and not expect anything in return. Remember, you are supporting the developers not buying a product. Yes, the devs will often offer the product for your "donation", but get the idea in your head that you are not to expect it. projects fail in spite of the best of intentions.
Be a little Skeptical: By this I mean following the old adage of "if it's too good to be true then it probably isn't." If a dev is offering up the most fantastical thing, resist the urge to throw your precious cash at them and have some patience. It's easy to become overwhelmed and excited by something that promises to be the "perfect game" for you, so you open your wallet and start tossing coin at the studio. If you get this way, take a breath, go have a burrito or something and re-examine what they seem to be offering then ask yourself if it borders on the "too good to be true" area or not. Better yet, just wait and see what else they present. I have experienced this recently with Dual Universe. They seem to be on track and I am very excited for it, however I cannot really afford to buy into the alpha, so I force myself to calm down and wait. I follow their development when I can and repeat the cycle of excitement, calming down and continue to wait. It looks like the "perfect" game for me, but it may not be so I restrain myself and wait for release.
Learn Patience: Following from the above is learning to have some patience, which I guess is a good thing to learn for all aspects of life. Once you have learned to be patient about some things, life seems to be less stressful and more enjoyable allowing you to focus on the things that give you satisfaction and pleasure. Being excited and wanting it NOW are really not the same thing, you can be intensely interested in a game idea and have the patience to wait for it to become more than an idea at the same time.
So that's my take on the people who get into the "drama" around EA games and game ideas and what I think people who look at these things need to consider. Sure there are going to be "fly by night" developers looking for a quick buck and not producing anything, and there are going to be the odd group who go to EA with an idea but are not really prepared to develop a game, however I think those are rare and not the norm. I have seen enough of the development world in other realms of software development to lead me to think that most projects are sincere and begun with the full intention on delivering their vision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)